24
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
FIGURE 2.6 Did accidents happen here because drivers lacked ‘ situation awareness’
or because there is a hazard in the parking bay? For a critique of the concept of situation
awareness see Dekker, S.W., 2015. The danger of losing situation awareness. Cognition,
Technology & Work, 17( 2), pp. 159–161. ( From Bridger RS, Introduction to Human Factors
and Ergonomics, 4th Ed, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.)
using concepts such as situation awareness to explain safety occurrences is in the
kinds of safety recommendations that follow from the explanation. In F igure 2.6, we
can see a telegraph pole in a parking bay in a car park.
Protective padding and hazard tape have been placed around the pole as a result
of drivers reversing into it. Drivers do not expect to find telegraph poles in the middle of parking bays and it is no surprise that many have reversed into it, prompting
(eventually!) the installation of the padding ( either by the owner of the car park or
the owner of the telegraph pole). It might be concluded that the accidents happened
because drivers lacked situation awareness. The safety recommendation that might
follow would be to take steps to increase driver situation awareness. However, objects
such as telegraph poles do not belong in parking b ays – design should help us to be
error free – thus the pole should have been removed when parking lot was designed or
physically separated from the parking bays. This example illustrates the inadequacy
of using the concept of situation awareness and of focusing only on those involved
at the t ime – as we saw at the beginning of this chapter, HF is not about people, but
about systems. By focussing on psychological explanations in the immediate vicinity at the time the accident took place, we are limited to a micro-ergonomic analysis
that directs safety recommendations towards those involved at the time, whereas
we could equally argue that the owners of the telegraph pole and the owners of the
car park also lacked situation awareness and were unaware that there was a hazard
in the parking bay ( until, at least, many drivers had damaged their cars and had
complained).
A better explanation is that the accidents happened because of a hazard in the
parking bay.
Sensemaking in Safety Critical and Complex Situations
FIGURE 2.6 Did accidents happen here because drivers lacked ‘ situation awareness’
or because there is a hazard in the parking bay? For a critique of the concept of situation
awareness see Dekker, S.W., 2015. The danger of losing situation awareness. Cognition,
Technology & Work, 17( 2), pp. 159–161. ( From Bridger RS, Introduction to Human Factors
and Ergonomics, 4th Ed, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.)
using concepts such as situation awareness to explain safety occurrences is in the
kinds of safety recommendations that follow from the explanation. In F igure 2.6, we
can see a telegraph pole in a parking bay in a car park.
Protective padding and hazard tape have been placed around the pole as a result
of drivers reversing into it. Drivers do not expect to find telegraph poles in the middle of parking bays and it is no surprise that many have reversed into it, prompting
(eventually!) the installation of the padding ( either by the owner of the car park or
the owner of the telegraph pole). It might be concluded that the accidents happened
because drivers lacked situation awareness. The safety recommendation that might
follow would be to take steps to increase driver situation awareness. However, objects
such as telegraph poles do not belong in parking b ays – design should help us to be
error free – thus the pole should have been removed when parking lot was designed or
physically separated from the parking bays. This example illustrates the inadequacy
of using the concept of situation awareness and of focusing only on those involved
at the t ime – as we saw at the beginning of this chapter, HF is not about people, but
about systems. By focussing on psychological explanations in the immediate vicinity at the time the accident took place, we are limited to a micro-ergonomic analysis
that directs safety recommendations towards those involved at the time, whereas
we could equally argue that the owners of the telegraph pole and the owners of the
car park also lacked situation awareness and were unaware that there was a hazard
in the parking bay ( until, at least, many drivers had damaged their cars and had
complained).
A better explanation is that the accidents happened because of a hazard in the
parking bay.